tv The Dylan Ratigan Show MSNBC April 8, 2011 4:00pm-5:00pm EDT
dylan ratigan picks things up from here. a busy couple hours ahead? >> that, it is. here is what i'm thinking, i don't have to pay my taxes for one thing because the government will be closed. i'm pretty excited about that. people keep trying to correct me. >> some may not agree with you. >> i don't see how i need to send a tax check to a nonfunctioning entity. we'll get into the whole thing right now, richard. thank you so much. the show begins right now. good afternoon to you. the big story today, of course, the shutdown. right now house republicans about to speak about the most controversial cut on the table, funding for planned parenthood. nothing to do with the budget, but a good way to defund health services for women. who needs that? good afternoon to you. i am dylan ratigan. it's a friday in new york.
it's a friday in america and a wild one at that. the countdown now just eight hours until lights out. here is what that means for you. if you just mailed in your paper taxes, no refund checks for you. national parks and museums closing this evening, a big blow to local tourism. our soldiers will still be asked to fight to secure our energy resources, but we will not pay them while they do that. great way to support your troops. of course, federal housing, they will stop guaranteeing new home loans which should not honestly be a disruption in the short term, but is a meaningful threat if this gets extended. those, just a few of the consequences for all of us. right now lawmakers can't agree on what they disagree about. >> there's only one reason that we do not have an agreement as yet, and that issue is spending. >> we have an agreement on the cuts and savings.
the tea party, among others, but they're the biggest push, is trying to move its extreme social agenda. >> the shutdown shenanigans making us wonder if our lawmakers can't get last year's budget done, what exactly can they do? luke russert joins us from capitol hill. lots of political jockeying, pro wrestling at its finest. i understand, luke, i don't have to pay my taxes if this happens. >> if you were only so lucky, dylan. not quite how the system works. latest news to report, speaker of the house john boehner walked through speaker's lobby and said to a group of reporters, quote, i'm a happy warrior right now. whatever that means, we don't necessarily know. we can tell you both sides are still at odds at what the disagreement is as to why the government will shut down in about eight hours.ç democrats are saying it is cuts to planned parenthood as well as title 10 that republicans are insisting on making in a budget bill that is going to cause the
government to shut down. republicans say no. the policy writers have figured out this is more about spending, we've never agreed to a number. harry reid said there was an agreement to cut $38 billion from the rest of the fiscal year 2011. where you're seeing an argument, within that $38 billion, how much will be coming from mandatory programs and how much will be coming from discretionary programs. republicans want to see more discretionary programs cut because they believe going forward in the 2012 budget fight f you cut discretionary programs, the baseline for those is lower. if you do the programs -- the mandatory one that is democrats want, that would put the baseline for discretionary higher, meaning it would be difficult to cut more. that's the issue of spending. republicans are saying that's why they're upset with any type of deal. democrats say no way, this is all about planned parenthood and title 10 and social causes. the real story sit's probably somewhere in the middle.
out across america right now f you're traveling to washington, d.c. or going to a national park and you're lengthsed representative is telling you the government might shut down, can't go to the national zoo, go to yellowstone because of an agreement that planned parenthood should receive funding and whether or not there should be a baseline to be high or low for the 2012 budget fight, that goes in way, way over a lot of people's heads. quite frankly a lot of members of congress's heads. it's gotten down to this tiki tack issues, for lack of a better word, that seem to be holding up a tsunami of good will of folks who want to get it done. >> isn't the principle of really trying to get all this real tiki tacky stuff offç to completely consume all the oxygen so we don't talk about the massive wars, energy, disasters, health care monopolies, too big to fail banking system and all the other trillion dollar problems that
playing our system? if i can get you lost in the details of an irrelevant budget debate, is that not victory for the system that intends to maintain that status quo? >> in a literal sense which you preach about on your show every day, in terms of the deficit, the budget issues we're dealing with, it's about this big when you compare it to the whole big slice of the pie. the way the republicans see this, this is the first fight of three. threes the debt ceiling coming up in may that could go into the summer. the debt ceiling will be the huge issue especially when we talk about the economy of this country. there's a real belief on capitol hill you could possibly see the debt ceiling, a vote on the debt ceiling go down which would send the markets all around the world into a tizzy. that's why both sides are fighting to show they're tough, not weak, on the two largeer issues that face our nation. joining us democratic congressman jim clyburn of south carolina, assistant democratic leader in the house.
congressman clyburn, if you were a betting man, play pundit for a moment. what are the odds we actually have a shutdown this evening? >> it's 50/50 i think. maybe a little less than 50/50. so much about this business are about feelings. my gut tells me that we're not going to have a shutdown. i don't have anything to go on except my gut. i just don't think that the american people are going to stand for it. and i do believe that my republican friends know that. the numbers have been met. we're dealing with these so-called çriders. the american people want to stay at work. they want the economy to continue moving because things are moving in the right direction right now. and anything like a shutdown could disrupt that.
they know that. my republican friends know that. so i don't think we're going to have a shutdown. >> couldn't there have all been avoid fd the democrats simply passed a budget last year sometime? why didn't that happen? >> well, i think you've heard of a so-called 60-vote rule. and it's all because it was filibustered. the senate has got this filibuster rule over there that we don't have in the house. and so often we do things in the house and you can't get it done in the senate. so harry reid has tried hard to move an agenda over there. but because he doesn't have 60 votes to cut off filibustering, you can't move it. >> how is it the democrats are able to do the biggest overhaul in the health care system in decades, an attempt at an overhaul of the banking system that we haven't seen in a long
time -- i don't need that graphic yet, guys, and we're able to achieve that with the barrier that you described, but couldn't do a budget? why could you get health care and banking done? >> if you recall, when we did the health care bill, we did it on the process called reconciliation. you may recall that senator mcconnell threatened us, that we better not do it in the reconciliation. on the reconciliation, you can get around the 60-vote rule. >> why not do that with the budget since the reconciliation is vying for economic and financial issues of the country? >> well, the democrats aren't in charge of the house now. >> no, no, no. i'm saying last year. you could have used reconciliation to do a budgetç last year, no? >> we had a budget resolution t. rules for budgeting are different than the rules for authorizing legislation. so appropriation rules are different from authorizing rules. >> understood. that's educational for me. i appreciate that. thank you. >> thank you.
>> let's talk about the cuts themselves. specifically we're looking at the budget. maybe we can bring the pie chart up that was up a second ago. obviously most people know orr would like to know that 37% of all the money in the budget for '11 is health care related. 19% is social security related and 19% is defense related. those really are the vast majority, the big chunks. are those chunks on the table in this big cut, whether it's $30 billion, $40 billion, $60 billion, are those three things on the table in this deal? >> oh, yes. they've been there. if you remember, when we did our bill back during the lame duck when $41 billion were cut, we had all of that on the table. it is the republican that is did not want to put defense on the table. secretary gates had been saying
for a long time now that there are things over there that he can do without and he wanted to see us cut, but they're refusing to cut them. they plus up their continuing resolution by $67 billion on the defense side. at the same time they say we were $6 billion, $7 billion apart. that's why we were apart because they plussed up defense when they had it in their hands. >> my last question for you is, there's been lots of talks about the riders, planned parenthood, the epa, it's very clear there's a right wing agenda to defund the thingsç they don't like th have nothing to do with the budget. it's about as transparent as a child stealing candy because everybody knows it's irrelevant to the budget but an opportunity for the social conservatives in the country to nail women's health care, because they don't like women or whatever it is. but what we haven't received is any arctic case as to where the actual cuts in the billions are.
so people say, you give me a little information there in the categories, but no one seems to want to tell any of us what exactly you guys are talking about cutting. >> well, i have not been in the room for the negotiations, but i have to defend the speaker on this. speaker boehner is a consummate legislator, and he knows full well if he starts identifying the cuts, those special interests out there who may feel threatened by them will rev up their friends here in the body and may cause him some pain and suffering. so i think he's right not to identify those cuts and just deal with the top line number. so i've got to defend him on that, though i feel that some of what he wants to cut and some of these riders that he supports i don't defend him or do i support him on those things. >> fair enough.
your position is clear there. i'm going to let you go. i wanted to confirm one last thing. >> sure. >> before i go here because obviously there's a lot of problems with the government shutdown in termination of the disruptions all the news agencies are talking about, from national parks, to the mortgage servicing and the rest of it. am i correct that i don't have to pay my taxes next week as long as nobody is there to take the check? >> i wouldn't do that if i were you. hopefully the mailbox will work. if i were you, i'd get those things postmarked before the 15th. >> how can you -- that's like giants while the giants are on strike? why do i have to buy the ticket when there's no game? >> i agree with you, but i'm from south carolina and i'm much more conservative than that. >> thank you for the time, congressman clyburn, thank you. >> thank you so much for having me. straight ahead, the mega panel teed up friday afternoon. talking dollars and nonsense.
tory and i are going to not pay our taxes and see what happens. a budget battle focused on social issues as opposed to spending, and a shutdown. what washington wants for its political agenda even if the rest of america has to pay the price. then we'll make the case for robots in congress. they're rational, they can't be bought, they're not afraid of special interests and you can turn them off. mabel george michael was wrong when he said "got to have faith." it's not just with our congress. oohhh...my back. [ ding ] [ in korean ] how may i help you? do you have something for pain? ♪ oh, bayer aspirin?
oh, no, no, no... i'm not having a heart attack. it's my back. trust me. it works great for pain. [ male announcer ] nothing's proven to relieve pain better than extra strength bayer aspirin. it rushes relief to the site of pain. no matter where you're hurting. feel better? yeah. thanks for the tip. [ male announcer ] for powerful pain relief, use bayer aspirin. so i wasn't playing much of a role in my own life. but with advair, i'm breathing better. so now, i've got the leading part. advair is clinically proven to help significantly improve lung function. unlike most copd medications, advair contains both an anti-inflammatory and a long-acting bronchodilator, working together to help improve your lung function all day. advair won't replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than twice a day. people with copd taking advair may have a higher chance of pneumonia. advair may increase your risk of osteoporosis and some eye problems.
tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking advair. if you're still having difficulty breathing, take the lead. ask your doctor if including advair could help improve your lung function. get your first full prescription free and save on refills at advaircopd.com.
how can you say this is not ideological when the only things that are being cut are the very things that some people have been trying to cut for 40 years? senator kerry on the senate floor earlier today trying to explain why all this budget nonsense isn't really about money. let us bring in our friday mega panel. i won't say they're the best panel of the week, but i will say they are the last panel of the week. >> ouch. >> we're going to walk out, dylan. come on. >> panel shutdown, panel shutdown. >> chris free land, ari melbourne and teray which may be the best panel of the week. it hasn't occurred, and as a result we cannot know. obviously the first thing we're not going to do is pay our taxes until they reopen the government. are you with me on that? >> i'm going to do it in a much
more quiet and private way. if i announce it on national tv they'll come knocking on my door on the 16th and say, hey, i want your money. it is a very public, civil, disobedience move. >> this is the ratigan movement, no taxation without representation. >> you're not representing us, not actually doing anything. i'll pay when you guys ket back to business. if we show up at starbucksç an the door is closed, do i have to throw my money under the door. >> i have a friend, ari, with season tickets to the giant. there's an nfl lockout. he got a bill for his season tickets to the giants saying you've got until the end of the month to pay. but there is no league. how is it our money, which james clyburn came out point-blank and said i am not going to tell you what cuts are because we don't want to have to deal with the people or the special interests when they find out. >> because you might not like the cuts. >> we have to pay our taxes.
they refuse to tell us what they're cutting. we all know there are trillions of dollars in problems, we're being asked by the two-party political system to engage in this absurdity. am i missing something? >> if you want me to play irs which is always a popular friday afternoon thing, as you know, it's 2010 taxes. we're not paying forward for next year, we're paying taxes for the last fiscal year. number two, to your point, the tea barity and the republican obstructionists here want you to sour on government. we'll see more on the debt ceiling to undermine the faith in the system. >> they're trying to clear a path for their and dane which is defund parenthood, a political strategy? >> people like medicare. we have a new budget proposal in the next year about seriously
slashing that. if they look at the plan of how to clog the holes, they don't like sglit that's genius of the pro wrestling business, my brother. why do you think we have it? >> dylan, this is where actually the democrats and white house has really miss add trick. the thing i find really astonishing about this debate is you haven't seen the democrats andç the white house come out forcefully and say, you know what, the recovery is still really, really weak. to even be talking about cutting spending right now is kind of crazy. if you don't believe that, look across the atlantic at britain where they were brave and bold and courageous and really slashed spending. you know what's happening? the economy is shrinking and they have inflation, they'll have high interest rates and a shrinking economy. that's what happens in the teeth of a weak economy. >> any of us know for a fact there are no bold deficit cuters
in our government. if they were, they would be dealing with defense, with energy, et cetera, et cetera. >> dealing with health care. but how did that work out? not so great. >> let's accept them for what they are. they are not bold budget cutters. they are pro wrestling with a political agenda they're attempting to serve because they are not dealing with the actual problem. we've talked about those four major problems many times. what i did, however, notice is that they're using this pro wrestling opportunity to cut $300 million from health services for women, that they're using this pro wrestling match to attempt to cut environmental funding, et cetera, et cetera. is this not a brilliant manipulation of pro wrestling and distraction in order to do what you actually want to do while basically wearing the veil or the mask of this budget nonsense? >> it's a brilliant manipulation and distraction in that this is an issue, a shutdown that tav raj person in iowa, kansas, new
mexico, can totally wrap their head around. the more complex budget tear issues, the average person is i don't know what i think about that. but the government wasn't working and obama was in charge, it's very easy to go, i'm going to blame that guy, he's not doing a good job. >> regardless of who you blame, am i wrong in simply thinkingç this is a brilliant political maneuver to have the distraction, to not deal with the problem and then nail the things you want to nail as a social conservative in this case? >> actually, i disagree with this premise, dylan. i think they obviously -- the people pushing this social conservative agenda, they want to nail those things. i think there is a real republican agenda here which is actually quite explicit, although not on the table right now, which argues that government must get a lot smaller. and it's not really about the deficit. it is about size of government and the argument is we want taxes definitely not to go up, probably to go down. >> let's stop there. let's accept that premise. even on that premise, nothing that we're talking about
achieves anything that you're asserting. >> that's right. but i think they're warming up. they're warming up. >> no, no. let's look at what they're actually doing. what do you think, ari? >> i think not. >> you don't think the republicans want to shrink the state? >> i think we had a president bush and a republican congress and we saw the state, as you said, grow. i think we have a bloated defense system. we've seen that completely off the table. >> okay. >> it's only the part of the state that helps poor people that republicans want to shrink. i think they genuinely honestly want to shrink that part of the state. >> that's a shrinking part of the state to begin with. >> the point becomes obstructionism for its own sake. if obama can't accomplish anything, that's valuable for sglus because that obstructionism discredits the government and in the process enhances support for defunding anything in the government which i mean -- you don't buy it?
>> i think this is a game of brinksmanship and neither side wants to get to a shutdown. i think being the party responsible for the government notç working is actually dangerous. most people are sensible and they understand. they want some kind of government. we don't want to live in libya. >> let me put one number on the table. when you look at where obama started and you look at where boehner started, we are now talking about an obama proposal that is 78% of the cuts of what boehner wanted. >> i agree. i think the white house has given ground. >> your point is this is a disingenuous negotiation to which we accept is a fundamental premise. >> thus, to your question, the issue is not so much the dlininging of the state because they got 78%. >> obama caved and so they're pushing him harder. >> they will go after military, the energy complex. they you want to do this, i got
four major issues all of which costing trillions of dollars, i'll shrink away. the other question to his credibility point toure is this, does this create a field day for third party candidates of any and all kind by virtue of the fact that both political parties at this point will suffer the damage of the buffoonery that they deserve and in the process invite the next ross perot or, dare i say, donald trump into the room? >> i would say no, only because the two parties are so deeply branded and established in this country. third party, it's just never going to happen. >> never say never. >> two months ago i would have said absolutely yes, dylan. but then mike bloomberg has started to self destruct a little bit. >> he's not the only third party. >> but he would be a brilliant third party just because i think that, that means it's wrong
automatically? >> i'm not saying it's wrong. i'm saying i will get the sense that we will see a field of candidates outside of the conventional political establishment as a result of the credi!lity disruption that will remind us of a trip to the zoo. >> what is going to be the agenda of a third party candidate that works? >> third party candidate that works would have a strong job creation and reform package that goes to tax code simplification and investment development in this country that they could sell. i'm not saying wheat get that third party candidate. i think there is open territory. >> i tell you one thing, the third party candidate would never, ever come from new york city. it's not going to be trump or bloomberg. the rest of the country doesn't like that. >> you're buying that mike broom berg, short jewish guy from new york -- >> if you're a new yorker -- >> you're saying you can be black, you can be a jew, you can be short, you might even be
muslim. if you're from new york, forget it? >> forget it. >> what about a woman, is that okay? >> absolutely. >> we're weird, we're outliers. we're too hip. we can't go into the south -- >> now you're just talking about for yourself. >> on the hip point, speak for yourself. these guys were talking about their outfits in the green room. >> apparently i couldn't run because my suit is too cheap is what i was told. >> really? is he wearing a cheap suturee, did you say that? >> they told you to wrap. >> the shirt, please. >> this did, however, halfway through the panel put you in the run forth best panel of the week by virtue of the honesty shared on this set. up next, we'll bring our specialist, a man who was there the last time the lights went out in washington, d.c.,
national journal editorial director ron brownstein takes us on a tlip down memory lane to the '95 shutdown that led to welfareç reform and the capita gains tax cut. if you don't think the shutting the government leads to policy changes, think again. we'll get into it with him after this. hey, pete. yeah, it's me, big brother. put the remote down and listen. [ male announcer ] this intervention brought to you by niaspan. so you cut back on the cheeseburgers and stopped using your exercise bike as a coat rack. that's it? you're done? i don't think so. you told me your doctor's worried about plaque clogging your arteries -- what did he call it... coronary artery disease.
that cholesterol medicine he also wants you on -- niaspan? i looked it up online. hey, pete, you waiting for an engraved invitation? [ male announcer ] if you have high cholesterol and coronary artery disease, and diet and exercise are not enough, niaspan, along with diet and a bile acid-binding resin, is fda-approved not only to slow down plaque buildup but to actually help clear some of it away. pete, as kids, i always looked up to you. now, i'm just trying to look after you. [ male announcer ] if you cannot afford your medication, call 1-877-niaspan. niaspan is not for everyone, like people with stomach ulcers, liver, or serious bleeding problems. severe liver damage can occur when switching to niaspan from immediate-release niacin. blood tests are needed to check for liver problems. tell your doctor if you have muscle pain or weakness; this could be a sign of serious side effects; this risk can increase with statin use. tell your doctor about alcohol use, if you've ever had gout, or are diabetic and experience increases in blood sugar. flushing, a common side effect,
people at the top of the pyramid on both sides don't want it to happen. they don't always controlç events. i think most people in the newsroom around me would bet they find a way to avoid this, because both sides are so uncertain about who would ultimately pay the political price. sometimes events get out of control. that could -- that is a very real possibility in these last hours. >> how would that play out? the out-of-controlness? >> it would basically be if john boehner -- any deal that is acceptable to harry reid and president obama can't be sold by john bane tore his caucus. that would be the dynamic that would lead you to a shutdown. i don't know if that's going to happen. that still seems to be very much a real possibility. >> chrystia? >> is this a fight between boehner and his caucus? is that what's going on here? >> no. john boehner is not jacob javits. he's not some secret rockefeller
republican trying to give away the store. he is someone who lived through the '95-'96 experience who is very leery of going through that again because it was an absolute turning point in the confrontation between president clinton and the republican congress. i think he very much wants to avoid reprising that. having said that, there are powerful centrifugal forces in this republican caucus t. new members don't believe they were sent here to compromise president obama. they came by and large from districts where obama was unpopular, strong correlation, the results in 2010 and the underlying attitudes towards obama in the districts. these new freshmen republicans are not looking i think going out of their way to find ways to be conciliatory. there may be -- the bridge may be too far to close between those two sides even if the people at the top basically believe a shutdown is simply too dangerous to entertain. >> ron, it's toure, first of all, the suit looks great. wantd to get that out of the
way. >> thank you. >> çseriously, what is the long -- >> glad i passed those new york standards. >> but is it designer, ron? >> yes. >> "project runway?" >> he's like i came here to talk about welfare reform and capital gains taxes. go ahead toure. >> if the shutdown happens, what is the long-term political fallout for obama that you see? is this going to be an issue that comes up in the campaign and becomes a problem from there? >> i don't think either side knows exactly how this plays out. there's no question the last time it happened, it was the absolute turning point in bill clinton's presidency. he essentially was on the defensive from the spring of 1994 through the fall of 1995. of course, the republican landslide occurred in '94. in the spring of '95 he was reduced to declaring that the president was still relevant. newt gingrich was portraying himself as a prime minister. during the second government
shutdown in the winter of '95-'96, clinton's approval rating went back over 50% for the first time since probably late in '93. he also went past bob dole in the gallup poll during the second shutdown. the '96 campaign from my perspective having covered it closely essentially ended during that second government shutdown. no guarantee that history will repeat itself. as someone said, often it rhymes. i think republicans are very leery of getting themselves in a situation where the president as a single voice with the pulpit usually has the upper hand. there's one big difference between this period and '295-'96 period. when clinton got in the shutdown, he established the predicate that he was for balancing the budget and put out a program to do that. he was basically able to argue, the question was not whether, but how to move toward more fiscal responsibility. i don't think obama has established that predicate nearly as well. pew poll out çyesterday, voter
still prefer republicans on handling the budget. a little more risk for the white house as well which is why they may not also be so enthusiastic about leaping off the precipice. gingrich had to deal with a lot of misgivings with his own people in the caucus. do you see anything like that developing for boehner? is there anyone people have in mind that would create a challenge if he has a perception problem that he didn't go far enough in challenging obama? >> eric cantor has turned a lot of heads with a lot of his remarks, seeming to outflank him from the right. the dynamic in '59-'9 '6 was more complicated. bop dole was the front-runner was very leery of the strategy from the beginning. he was also very unwilling to cross or seem to kind of pull away from the house republicans because he had phil graham looming on his right ready to pounce on him for nir sign of being weak kneed or giving away the store. he swallowed his resignations until in the second shutdown he
said, enough, they're inflicting too much costs on ourselves and the name of ideological purity. it's not clear who is playing that role now. if it's anyone, it's probably boehner himself in the closest thing to the bob dole role. boehner wants to push this pretty far, too. i think he's more cautious having live through it as is mcconnell of replicating the experience of '95 and taking the risk it will play out in the same way then. >> isn't it nice having these specialists? i just love it. ron, thank you so much for teaching me and us and giving us a way to look at this. thanks to the three of you for being the best panel of the week and for being a panel that was happy to work with me and i enjoy working with. thank you, guys, have a great weekend. ari melberç chrystia free man d toure. and at the end of the show,
science may have uncovered the reason you can't put down your crack berry. new research showing people, in fact, show physical signs of withdrawal when asked to give up their tech gadgets cold turkey. we're just talking about a 24-hour stretch. one in five reported feelings that closlp resemble addiction, symptoms like the 19% who reported emotional and physical distress. 11% felt feelings of isolation and the same number who say they felt like a failure. some participants even reported
carrying their phone around, quote, just to touch it. it wasn't all bad news. about a quarter of users said they felt immediate benefits from unplugging, begging the question for every last one of us or you or me, how would you handle a day with no tech? you can tweet me, e-mail me, find me on facebook or any other technological device and let me know. still ahead, one area where robots might not be so bad if they were to take over? congress. it's new! ahhh-ahh-ahh! it's nice 'n easy colorblend foam! permanent color with tones and highlights. now in a delightful foam. just three shakes, foam it, love it! it's foamtastic! new nice 'n easy colorblend foam. your right color.
predictable, the political theater has become the song an dance. i think of it as pro wrestling as you know. democrats blame republicans. republicans blame the democrats. all the while, the trillion dollar problems, they're huge, not that many of them, energy and the war, health care, banking and trade remain unsolved. extracting trillions of dollars from our country. here is an intriguing idea that would make the political process perhaps more efficient. congress ought be run by robots.
so says a columnist who proposed the idea. dana milbank with "the washington post" asserts that simple premise. what do you mean, dana? >> this week senator gene sheheen had an exhibition of robots in the senate part of capitol hill and wanted to demonstrate the usefulness of robots, i thought she could go further by see fg we could have more of them come and take care of our problems here. certainly if the robots were in charge, we wouldn't have anything like what you're seeing today with multiple press conferences with all kinds of name calling. the robots would be able to put together an algorithm and have this budgetç taken care of in nanoseconds. >> and how would the robots respond, for instance, to special interests? >> well, i think we could program them anyway we want. what's interesting about the robots that senator sheheen brought is each one is actually sponsored by a corporation like
exxon mobil or lockheed martin. in fact, that's exactly the same way actual lawmakers are sponsored. >> and so you're saying we could program the robots to project certain special interests. if you're a robot fund bid the nra you would reject certain legislation that was, let's say, getting rid of high magazine, high output assault weapons? >> yes. also for the state of the union, if they heard a certain word, they would know to jump up and applaud depending on how you programmed them. >> if we program the robots to represent what we have now which is bought politician base wide va vit of special interests giving us pro wrestling, wouldn't we just have this with robots? wouldn't we want to program them differently? we wouldn't want to replicate these people? >> this is the problem. then we veed to fight about the robots. it would give the members more time at home to do the fund-raising which is, of course, what they want to do in the first place. it's not entirely new.
the vice president of the united states for eight years was a robot. so it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility. >> all right. i won't push the envelope. i think you pushed it far enough. so we'll assume we want to keep robots that replicate what we have but do what they're doing more efficiently and more productively as opposed to my -- we'll call mine 2.0 where we reprogram the robots to not be so influenced, but go with the current model. >> i'm open to this possibility. i think we could get bowles and simpson together to put together the optimal use. >> robot optimization. >> clua 1e1ñ it couldn't be wore than what we've got right now. >> let's go with swapping out politicians for robots. which robot would most represent the value system of which politician so we don't get it wrong. we can upgrade from there. i want to give you names, you tell me the robot you think is the best replacement and then we'll upgrade the computer
system. they can raise the money. barbara boxer, best robot replaceme replacement? >> well, that robot would need quite a bit of maintenance i think. that would be a pretty difficult one. >> it would be temperamental and delicate and fragile. >> a little fin nickie. every senator has a specific. i suggested mitch mcconnell would be linguo, from "the simpson's." >> what about pelosi? >> i think she should be rosie from "the jetsons." >> henry waxman. >> definitely wahl-i. he's not befriended by too many things other than a small -- >> not only a senator but of course our vice president, joe biden.
>> very difficult to have any robot is his main feature, an inability to follow the operator commands. >> and we'll finish with our favorite tea partier, whatever that means in the current reality, michele bachmann. >> this could get us into a little bit of trouble, i would say the democrats are afraid of michele bachmann in the same way that austin powers was afraid of the fembots. >> i think in the scheme of what i've seen from the pro wrestling environment in d.c. today, this thoughtful and intelligent and well-founded ideas that i have encountered, dana. thank you. >> glad to be of assistance. >> dana milbank. you can check that out online. coming up on "hardball" senators barbara boxer, chris coons on the impending government shutdown. first, perhaps it's the donald who will save america.
toure's turn to rant. he's back right after this. curtiswelcome back to geico radio, it's savings, on the radio. gecko: caller steve, go right ahead. steve: yeah, um, i just got a free rate quote on geico.com, saved a ton, and it only took me 5 minutes and 12 seconds! steve: i was wondering, is that some sort of record? gecko: that's a good question. let's have a look. curtis: mmmm, not quite. someone's got you beat by 8 seconds. gecko: still, i mean, that's... that's quite fast! steve: well, what if i told you i only used one hand? anncr: geico. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. i'm sam chernin, owner of sammy's fish box. i opened the first sammy's back in 1966. my employees are like family, and i want people that work for me to feel that they're sharing in my success. we purchase as much as we can on the american express open gold card so we can accumulate as many points as possible. i pass on these points to my employees to go on trips with their families. when my employees are happy, my customers are happy. how can the gold card help serve your business?
ç watching this channel and you're watching the show, you surely know by now donald trump has been on a worldwide media blitz. here with his take on the presidential run or at least the presidential teasing of the donald is our friend and neighbor toure. >> what is donald trump's main problem? hasn't america been great to him? in what other country could he
start life with a few million and a few real estate properties gifted to him by dishis daddy and turn that into fantastic wealth and turn that into massive debt, billions of debt, get banks to bail him out so he could become a rich reality show host/media whore massacre reading as a business genius? he's treating america like charlie sheen treats denise richards. he has no original political ideas, no real hair and no respect for the serious business of sorting out this country's future. these are serious times. millions are suffering economically in this country, millions are working on overdloeing governments. being president matters. as the nation thinks about who should be our commander in chief in 2013, the last thing we need is a streaker running across the stage. that's what the donald is. he's the presidential race's equivalent of a streaker, darting through playing field
naked wanting more more than attention. demanding it in a disgusting way. the centerpiece of the donald's so-called campaign is inviting the questioning whether obama was born in america. >> three weeks ago when i started, i thought he was probably born in this country and now i really have a much bigger doubt than i did before. i have people studying it and they can't believe what they're finding. >> don't you know heç says the can't believe what they're finding. this idea has been debunked again and again. >> this is the birth certificate. for people, for the umpteenth time here is president obama's birth certificate. look at it. it's real. >> birtherism doesn't locate trump as an important leader or valuable figure, it suggests the president is a devious liar and says he's not a real american,
not one of us. i read he's not one of us as a subtle coded way of reminding white people that he's blacks. new yorkers know trump is the crazy uncle who looks cookie and engaging to people outside the family, but is obnoxious and great grating at thanksgiving dinner. you'd be better as the president of the hair club for men. >> two questions occur to me. first of all, that was brilliant. number one, isn't obama half black? >> yes, he is half black by birth, but in terms of how we present ourselves in america, and not even talking about the one drop rule, but the way we present ourselves, the way he presents himself, we talked about the performance. >> perceived as a black man. >> not just the perception, but the performance of race, he embodies blackness. so we receive him fully as a black man, black family.
>> number two, i don't disagree with your indictment of his intent, motive, objective, any of that, but he does bring up, aside from the birtherism, very credible statements on things like trade policy -- >> he says don't just pound china, make them pay us. is that a realistic -- >> my point is, he has addressed trade in a way that i'll tell you what, is much more comprehensive of our problems than anybody i've heard including the president address china which is that they're rigging their çcurrency, they' not taxing on our side. i'm telling you point-blank -- >> this is not a serious political thinker. >> i get that. but when he asserts things that are true on trade, on china, on housing, how should we digest that, quickly? >> i've listened --